Alex's argument that Nancy Pelosi cannot hold up delivering the impeachment to the Senate is based on a flawed reading of the 1993 Supreme Court decision, Nixon versus the United States. The quote, Quote, the framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings. Alex read it there. It's sort of the cornerstone of the article on Infowars. Out of context, that kind of appears to be saying that the Senate gets to decide everything. But really, in regards to this specific complaint being heard, it doesn't really... What is it with you in this context? It's always like, oh, you should understand things within the context in which they were said. And then there's the time period. That's also context. Dan, there's so much context. What if instead I told you you could believe whatever you wanted to believe? Sounds fun. In this case, a judge named Walter Nixon, who'd been impeached, sued to have his salary reinstated because he believed that the Senate Rule 11 had been broken by how the Senate carried itself out in the impeachment process. His argument was rejected, and the Supreme Court held that the framers really were only requiring that the senators be under oath. That two-thirds vote for conviction to pass and that the chief justice presided over the case when it's the president being impeached. That's not required in other impeachments, just in cases of presidential impeachment. It's so funny that a judge who was impeached came up with a flawed legal argument. Other than these three things, the framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings. This legitimately has nothing to do with how an impeachment indictment is transferred from the House to the Senate.